June 29, 2010

Here's the live stream. Yesterday was tedious beyond words, and, accordingly, I wrote nothing. Today, there's some potential for a spark or 2, and I'll do some live-blogging here.

8:03 CT: Senator Leahy invites Kagan to talk more about her parents. This is an incredibly soft softball question, and Kagan receives it the right way: as an opportunity to exhibit her warmth and humanity. Her face immediately radiates what looks like real love for her parents, and her words go straight to what is relevant: Her parents embodied and taught the values that will make her a fine judge. Kagan seems fully at ease and far more natural than the stuffy Senator. She gestures. She seems affable. Leahy is scripted and speaks in a gruff tone. His words are supportive but he sounds like he's scolding her.

8:09: Kagan is wearing a gray jacket. It's tailored with lapels like a man's jacket. Perfectly standard and stunningly dull and undistracting. I approve. Away with the goofy big-collared "political blue" thing she had on yesterday. She's speaking like a law professor, explaining how to do constitutional interpretation. Leahy is trying to drag her through his stodgy script, but she is seizing control. I sense the presence of a lawprof — being generous to a student who's asked a question and pulling the discussion to a more sophisticated level. The level of expression here is excellent.

8:45: Senator Sessions is taking an aggressive tone, interrupting Kagan in a way that doesn't make a very good impression. He quotes E.J. Dionne and [name needed] who have labeled Kagan a "legal progressive," and Kagan says she doesn't know what that term means and would like to decide for herself what labels apply to her. Instead of supplying a definition for "legal progressive," Sessions bluntly insists the meaning is known. Kagan keeps her cool and decisively wins this round. Someone give Sessions a clear definition of the term and a way to ask particular questions to determine if she fits within it.

8:51: The question of the way Kagan, as Harvard Law School dean, handled military recruiting has come up twice now. Leahy stopped Kagan from talking about the law school's specific policy and steered her into a much more general discussion of the great value of the military and respect for individuals who choose a material career. Sessions is now pushing Kagan on the legal position she took. Did she comply with the Solomon Amendment (which required schools to give equal access to military recruiters)? Kagan claims to have followed the amendment. Sessions smiles, but testily snaps: "You didn't do what the DOD requested!" Kagan is good at remaining poised and calmly re-explaining her position, which contains no whiff of antagonism to the military or even to the Solomon Amendment. She is displaying a judicious, careful approach: She needed to balance the school's anti-discrimination policy, the importance of providing full access for the students to military recruiters, and respect for the Solomon Amendment as interpreted by the Department of Defense. There is absolutely zero hostility to the military or to the law. She's not giving Sessions anything to turn against her. There's no righteous criticism of Don't Ask, Don't Tell or assertion of the law school's right to maintain its anti-discrimination policy despite the Solomon Amendment. His time running out, Sessions lets loose with his frustration: "I know," he says emphatically, that you opposed Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

9:09: Now, it's Wisconsin's own Herb Kohl. Rest time!

9:13: Kohl's laughable question: "I'm sure you're a woman of passion — Where are your passions?" He seems to be channeling Obama's empathy idea and wants her to identify some social or political issue that she's excited about pursuing through judging. Kagan, wisely, restates her devotion to deciding cases according to the law. This isn't a job where someone should come in with a particular substantive agenda and try to shape that job to meet that agenda, Kagan says (unsurprisingly).

9:36: Cameras in the Supreme Court would be great — for the Court and the people, she says.

9:40: Senator Hatch is now questioning Kagan about Citizens United. This is a good time to watch live.

9:53: As Hatch stresses the effect of the McCain-Feingold law on small corporations that would like to express an opinion at a time close to an election, and Kagan reminds him that her job as Solicitor General is to defend acts of Congress. When Hatch presses her on whether the law violates free speech rights, Kagan quips: "Senator Hatch, you should be talking to Senator Feingold."

10:57: I skipped Dianne Feinstein. Then, there was a break. Now, we're up to Senator Kyl. He's reading Obama's empathy statement — you can read it here: In 5% of cases, Obama said, "adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon," and one must at that point rely on "one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy." Kagan is forthright: "It's law all the way down." She says that several times — and I note that her statement isn't really at odds with what Obama said. A good follow-up question would have been: But do you think that law includes a component that comes from deep values and human empathy? The secret answer is: Yes.

11:10: Kyl is trying to get at whether Kagan is biased against corporations and would find ways to favor the little guy, but there really isn't a way to drag out a confession like that. Kyl is using things Justice Thurgood Marshall said, citing her great praise of the man whom she clerked for, and asking her if she'd say that too. She's able to finesse this: Marshall was wonderful, but she's her own woman. And, of course, the overarching theme of every hearing on a Supreme Court nominee: She's going to decide cases according to the law.

11:22: "How do you decide who's 'on the side of the angels'?" Kyl asks, repeatedly pushing Kagan on a phrase she used in her notes when she was a law clerk. Kagan asserts (and I hear shakiness in her voice) that it meant who was on the right side of the law.

11:56: Russ Feingold notes that the lack of Supreme Court Justices from the Midwest. How will Kagan, a New Yorker, understand the people of the Midwest? Answer: She's lived in Chicago and something along the lines of being very good about understanding whatever she needs to understand.

12:02: I'm taking a break from the live action. I'll catch up with transcripts and recordings later.

are the republicans staying home today? is Sarah in town? give me a reason to listen...otherwise it is more posturing by the far right who have stepped over the edge of rationality into a rabbit hole of stupidity.

"Yesterday was tedious beyond words" (i.e. politics) but today (O blessed day!) we have "the presence of a lawprof — being generous to a student who's asked a question and pulling the discussion to a more sophisticated level."

LOL. The lawprof looks in the mirror and sees generosity, sophistication and that dull gray jacket that is oh so perfect for the occasion. She likes what she does and likes it when its best attributes are on national display. Fair enough.

The dichotomies in the narrative are interesting too. Politics = boring, bad, beneath contempt, too bright blue, all about hiding the ball. In contrast, Lawprof'ing = warm, sophisticated, generous, leading others up and beyond (almost but not quite to the Promised LawProfLand), safe dull gray.

It's all a matter of perspective. Others will look at the same scene and see the politics (and especially the political subtext) as the only thing of interest; all the warm, fuzzy lawprof stuff is so much goo for those lacking a consuming fascination with power.

As she said recently, au bas de l'escalier, the lady is not persuaded.

Interestingly enough in the last several years there have been four big SCOTUS cases which IMHO, really define our freedoms and personal liberty Kelo property rights; Citizens United free speech; Heller 2nd amendment and now McDonald.

I hear a lot from liberals about how the right wants to curtail freedoms, we’re fascists yet when I look at where the liberal Justices ruled or dissented in those aforementioned cases I think it’s pretty clear who are the real curtailers of freedom and liberty.

After all when the State can take your property, restrict your political speech and disarm the populace, you really don’t have much left in the way of freedom.

"Ms. Kagan, you come in here and you say to us that you believe in following the constitution as the founders intended it. Now you and i both know that is bull. You believe that the constitution is a living document, that grows beyond the limited imagination of the dead white men who founded this nation. If not, then you would be a vote to overturn Lawrence and Roe.

"So I ask you this. If this is what you really believe, and not the originalist B.S. line you are giving us now, why can't you respect us and the American people enough to say it? if its legitimate, shouldn't you be able to make the case to the people?"

I see an even more lethargic America [The Great Malaise] once the Court is dominated by libs. They mistakenly believe the govt can protect & control everyone's destiny by enacting more and more and more laws.

For instance, the EPA will go so far with carbon control, cars will be no bigger than the average coffin.

Since all the case info is out there and they even have the answers ahead of time, why don't they just ask nominees how they would have decided past cases? The answers would be more instructive than hearing about their childhood or most of the rest of it. How they will decides cases is all anyone cares about and nothing tells you better than past ones, especially for a non-judge nominee. Politics is such pretend.

I just don't think "I don't have any idea what a 'legal progressive' is so I can't possibly even comment on whether or not I could be one" is an acceptable answer.

If this were an honest Q&A session (which it's not on either side, of course), she would speculate about what that term could mean, and discuss whether or not the person who labeled her as it could be right or not. This dismissal is shallow, at best.

Do not want her on the Court at all because of her completely predictable liberal lockstep Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor philosophy.

That said, she is extremely likable and I would love to have dinner with her and here her views on many issues.

I do not believe the Republicans should filibuster her - elections have consequences and short of malfeasance and demonstrated lack of qualifications, the President should have a general deference to his choice. Then again, Obama himself filibustered on Court choices as a Senator - or am i wrong on that point?

I've met Herb Kohl several times in the past year in a professional capacity. Sadly, I think he is now a touch senile. Hopefully, he will retire gracefully in 2012, rather than being one of those oldsters that both parties trot out to push whichever button their staffer tells them to.

Leahy stopped Kagan from talking about the law school's specific policy and steered her into a much more general discussion of the great value of the military and respect for individuals who choose a material career.

It's nice that Leahy thinks that serving in the military is a material career. ;-0

I'm sure that they won't ask her views of "birthright citizenship" of alien children, which is utter nonsense, or the meaning of the Jurisdictional Phrase of the 14th Amendment, much less than the definition of Natural Born Citizen (her nominator is a Usurper, whose father was NEVER a US Citizen).Since they are all committing treason they would never dare ask her about "standing", and John Marshall's belief that SCOTUS should reach to take a case about a Constitutional question when it should.Natural Born Citizen= Born in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction of no other foreign power (i.e both mother and father, or mother if single, are US Citizens).

Most recently, the Obama administration decided to challenge the 2007 Arizona immigration law and has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the provision. But what is a little known fact to most Americans is that it was Kagan who was the originator and driving force behind the Obama administration’s decision to ask the Court to overturn the Arizona immigration law. Kagan recently admitted as much in required disclosures to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

What part of illegal does she not understand? Are they trying to prevent AZ. from enactiong a law that prohibits "birthright citizenship" to the children of illegal aliens, since it would call into question the nonsense belief that Native Born = Natural Born?

MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered a new review of the convictions in the government corruption case against former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and ex-HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

The court's brief order vacated the decision of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had upheld their convictions, and ordered it to review their appeals in light of a ruling that went against what is known as the "honest services fraud" law.

If ever a human being should speak frankly, it's when they are being considered for a job that they will likely hold for the rest of their lives. Not to mention that the prime test for the candidate's suitability is their very distinct and singular judgment on major issues.

Of course, you are right in that a smart lawyer would avoid those kind of traps (can't let the mask slip, even for a second). I'm just indulging my idealist streak.

Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer laid out their substantive due process judicial method yesterday in their McDonald dissents. Why not take her through Justice Stevens method and Justice Breyer's method and see where she agrees and disagrees with it.

former law student said... "Are they trying to prevent AZ. from enactiong a law that prohibits "birthright citizenship" to the children of illegal aliens

That's what the Fourteenth Amendment does."

No it doesn't. I guess that's why you are a "former" law student, not that lawyers know anything about the Constitution.The children of aliens, born in the US, have 3 ways to achieve citizenship:1) They can naturalize at the age of consent.2) They can naturalize by election at the age of consent if their parents become legal residents.3) They become US Citizens automatically if their parents become US Citizens.

They are certainly not "US Citizens at birth" (much less a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS), since they are first subject to the jurisdiction of their parents, and then of their parent's country. If the parents took them out of the country, they would travel under the parent's home country's passport, not the US's. Duh.

The 14th Amendment made slaves citizens, reasserted the Bill of Rights for them, and made the Civil Rights Act of 1866 Constitutional Law (which said that jurisdiction meant allegiance to the US and no other foreign power, reaffirmed in Elk v. Wilkins (1874)). It never said that the children of aliens were "citizens at birth". Only a wrong headed reading of Wong Kim Ark does that. Wong was made a US Citizen by election, since the parents were unnaturalizeable (Chinese Exclusionary Acts) and domiciled legal residents. But then I'm probably talking to a wall.

If Senator Sessions could specify what he means by "Legal Progressive," then Kagan could answer it. Why should Kagan try to guess what Sessions means?

She is the one that she and Obama profess to have this vast legal knowledge, which would include jurisprudence, as well as her having vast experience with academics, etc., who speak of such things as "legal progressives."

She knows exactly what he means and everyone knows it.

By professing ignorance, she is either lying or, if she really does not know, then she is showing herself to be incompetently out of touch with the legal community.

Hoosier Daddy said...Interestingly enough in the last several years there have been four big SCOTUS cases which IMHO, really define our freedoms and personal liberty Kelo property rights; Citizens United free speech; Heller 2nd amendment and now McDonald.

I hear a lot from liberals about how the right wants to curtail freedoms, we’re fascists yet when I look at where the liberal Justices ruled or dissented in those aforementioned cases I think it’s pretty clear who are the real curtailers of freedom and liberty.

The left will give you the freedom to fornicate with anyone or anything you desire. It will also give you freedom from the predictable consequences of imprudent behavoir.

can you name one person you have ever convinced with your rantings? The rantings that supposedly we are controlled by the justinian code?

Give his or her real name or nick. just one."

Justinian code? Another Straw man perhaps?Of course you are one of the "walls", that lick Obama's balls and would never concede anything against the messiah, but I'm sure there are plenty. How does it feel to be a treasonous littleMarxist bootlicker, that cares not for the sovereignty of we the people?

When Obama is found to be a Usurper anything he signed and any appointment he made, like the Progressives (Sotomayor and Kagan) that he wants on the SCOTUS will be null and void, and his "presidency" treated like it never happened.

I have to admit to the prejudice that Democrats from Maine to Fairfax County read The New York Times, at least on Sundays. In this last Sunday's NYT Magazine is an article by Professor Noah Feldman, "Imagining a Liberal Court".

First sentence of the last paragraph: "Now the moment has arrived for progressive constitutional thought to return to its origins — and to improve on them."

Ms Kagan left Harvard Law School and they immediately hired Mr Feldman and started doing all this new thinking about Progressivism and the law and the US Supreme Court and passing their ideas off to Senator Sessions.

Regards — Cliff

PS: But then I am easily confused. I thought Maggie Thatcher was a Liberal. After all, 60 million Frenchmen can't be wrong.

What's so hard about comprehending New York? The "tolerant" New York intellectual is a hard core leftist who brooks not the slightest deviation from the party line and knowing what's in store for him/her should he deviate toes the line perfectly. Relative to the mid-west New York is mindbogglingly provincial.

Sessions and "legal progressive": The first thing I thought of was Sarah Palin and the "Bush Doctrine". It'll be interesting to see how (whether?) the whole bit is covered. I'm guessing that it'll be "stoopid Republican inventing things" instead of "dumb broad doesn't know words lol"

How will Kagan, a New Yorker, understand the people of the Midwest? Answer: She's lived in Chicago and something along the lines of being very Chicago is not the Midwest. It may be in the Midwest but it isn't representative of the Midwest in any way.

I will take that answer as a “no.” as in you have convinced no one. Indeed even “mainstream” birtherism rejects your silly theory that a person’s birthright citizenship can be affected one iota by the laws of another nation to which you didn’t consent. According to ancient dead romans which you claim is controlling on natural law.

> Of course you are ... would never concede anything against the messiah, but I'm sure there are plenty.

Yes, that’s it, I am an Obama worshiper. Seriously, have you read any of my comments here? I have repeatedly said he is one of the worst presidents in American history, certainly the worst in my memory (although to be fair, I don’t have much memory of carter).

> How does it feel to be a treasonous little Marxist bootlicker, that cares not for the sovereignty of we the people?

Excuse me, but you are the one trying to nullify an election, not me.

I may not like Obama particularly much, but I admit that the majority of the people voted for him; and more to the point, the electorial college gave him a majority, too.

AW said,"Excuse me, but you are the one trying to nullify an election, not me.

I may not like Obama particularly much, but I admit that the majority of the people voted for him; and more to the point, the electorial college gave him a majority, too."

The fact that he was popularly elected means nothing as far as his eligibility, that's why we have the 20th Amendment. The tresonous acts of the electoral college can be overcome by Quo Warranto in the DC District.

Isn't Kagan not knowing what a "Legal Progressive" a lot worse than Palin not knowing what the "Bush Doctrine" is?

No. One man's progressive is another man's radical is another man's conservative. "Legal progressive" is too vague a concept to address.

In contrast, Bush was fairly well-known at the time of the interview (US President IIRC), and he had articulated several doctrines by that point. The obvious reponse (in hindsight, l'esprit d'escalier, etc.) was to ask "Which Bush Doctrine?"

"I will take that answer as a “no.” as in you have convinced no one. Indeed even “mainstream” birtherism rejects your silly theory that a person’s birthright citizenship can be affected one iota by the laws of another nation to which you didn’t consent. According to ancient dead romans which you claim is controlling on natural law."

That is such a silly comment that I don't know where to begin. How do you think that children born in foreign countries to US Citizens are US Citizens at birth (not Natural Born)? It is because of our citizenship laws, just like children born of foreign citizens are subject to the citizenship laws of the parent's nation. That was affirmed in Perkins v. Elg (1934).. DUH. That is the law of nations, which is inscribed in the USC as our law of international relations (A1S8C10), which of course covers citizenship laws. Even Obama agrees with me on this, here from "fight the smears":

" “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

He admits to being born a British subject because of the BNA 1948, so WTF are you talking about. DUH.

I will take that answer as admitting you have never convinced anyone. You and you alone know what the constitution means!

> How do you think that children born in foreign countries to US Citizens are US Citizens at birth (not Natural Born)?

Yeah, the USC can expand the definition of natural born, maybe. To tell the truth it has never been tested, although there were some libs ready to say John McCain was not a natural born citizen because of being born in the canal zone. And I won’t say they were completely nuts, but I do think on balance they were wrong.

> One man's progressive is another man's radical is another man's conservative. "Legal progressive" is too vague a concept to address.

Sure, the liberals pretend that no word means anything. Except the word torture. if the question is what does the word "torture" mean, liberals claim that it is defined with such percision that no reasonable person can disagree with them when they say that Bush tortured! tortured! tortured! those poor terrorists.

Is this sufficient? If so, I think our jails would empty pretty swiftly.

Meanwhile, all of our illegal immigrants could simply say, "I am now legal."

That would save us having to trouble over the border issues.

And if a hobo went into a hotel lobby and said, "give me your best suite, because I am a millionaire," that would take care of the taxing problem of drumming up 750 for a penthouse overlooking the city.

I think we can label her a progressive, if not a gender bending Marxist lunatic right out of the pages of Judith Butler.

"Yeah, the USC can expand the definition of natural born, maybe. To tell the truth it has never been tested, although there were some libs ready to say John McCain was not a natural born citizen because of being born in the canal zone. And I won’t say they were completely nuts, but I do think on balance they were wrong."

This truly tells me that you have no idea of what you speak. Congress cannot redefine what "Natural Born Citizen" means, it is a requirement in the body of the USC, it must be Amended. They CAN make Naturalization laws to decide whom is a citizen. John McCain was subject to the birthright citizenship laws of Panama at the time of his birth, since he was born in Colon, Panama (not the base, although that would not matter). He is not a Natural Born Citizen, but Res. 511 said that he was a Natural Born Citizen because BOTH his parents were US Citizens here:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

They got it partially right, except that he was born a Panamanian citizen, and as such is NOT Natural Born. Congressional Resolutions have no force in law, such as the one proclaiming that the Usurper was born in HI. Merely for show.Of course you don't admit you are wrong even though I showed how clueless you are, just like most here.

Not at all. The Congress has the right to expand constitutional definitions. For instance Congress expanded the term “slavery” to include the peonage labor system and the coolie labor system, thus causing them to be both outlawed under the 13th A.

I know, I know, you will claim that is an outrage upon the constitution. Everyone, left, right and center is wrong about the constitution but you, alone. And we are Marxist bootlickers for disagreeing with you on anything.

You know, because the natural born citizenship clause was specifically designed to stop Marxism and/or the licking of boots.

By the way, do tell me when and how your ancestors became citizens of the U.S.

I mean i love this. my ancestors came from Germany, Scotland, Wales, and England. But I have never seen any of those countries. Neither have my parents. Neither have my grandparents. But according to you, all of us are citizens of, well, one of those countries, because after all my grandparents were the children of people who were not american citizens who did nothing to become american citizens. My grandparents' only claim to citizenship is birth on american soil. Ditto with my parents. Ditto with me and my siblings. But all of us, according to your theory are not americans. i mean none of us have even left america, not for one day, except when my Dad fought in vietnam. But according to you, he is not a citizen. He might have ended up dying for a country that you say he doesn't belong to. My maternal grandfather helped build airplanes in WWII and even helped build the A-bomb that saved probably millions of American soldiers' lives. But according to you, he is not a proper american, even though he knew of no other country, spoke no other language but English, held no allegiance in his heart but to the red, white and blue.

Well, pardon me for saying this, but go fuck yourself.

And do explain to me how the hell you became an american. Because unless you speak fluent cherokee or something like that, I am guessing you are no more american by your theories than Obama is.

I mean i love this. my ancestors came from Germany, Scotland, Wales, and England. But I have never seen any of those countries. Neither have my parents. Neither have my grandparents. But according to you, all of us are citizens of, well, one of those countries, because after all my grandparents were the children of people who were not american citizens who did nothing to become american citizens. My grandparents' only claim to citizenship is birth on american soil. Ditto with my parents. Ditto with me and my siblings. But all of us, according to your theory are not americans. i mean none of us have even left america, not for one day, except when my Dad fought in vietnam. But according to you, he is not a citizen. He might have ended up dying for a country that you say he doesn't belong to. My maternal grandfather helped build airplanes in WWII and even helped build the A-bomb that saved probably millions of American soldiers' lives. But according to you, he is not a proper american, even though he knew of no other country, spoke no other language but English, held no allegiance in his heart but to the red, white and blue.

"Well, pardon me for saying this, but go fuck yourself.

And do explain to me how the hell you became an american. Because unless you speak fluent cherokee or something like that, I am guessing you are no more american by your theories than Obama is."

WOW I really can't believe you are not a Usurper suipporter, since you repeat all of the Usurper apologist talking points.Natural Born Citizenship is a term of art from Natural Law, and are born in a country of parents who are that citizen's of that country.If one is born in the US of US Citizen parents, then that child is a Natural Born Citizen of the US. There are no competing allegiances. I have no idea how the Cherokee thing matters, especially since they are born subject to the jurisdiction of the Cherokee Nation, not the US (see Elk v. Wilkins (1874). As far as your parents or grandparents I am not sure since I don't have the history in front of me. As for you, if you were born in the US of US Citizens (or mother US Citizen if single), then you are a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS. Not sure why you have the need to go back further than that. That is why it is fair. To have children eligible to be POTUS, one must demonstrate allegiance to the US by becoming a citizen. If the child is born to non citizens, he/ she may become a citizen when the parents Naturalize, but he/she is not a Natural Born Citizen (eligible for POTUS). Natural Born Citizens have the same rights as any other citizen (including naturalized), the only difference is that they are eligible to be POTUS, and Natural Born Citizens are the largest segment of US Citizenry. As far as the USURPER, he has shown his lack of allegiance by having the nerve to knowingly Usurp the Presidency (he is a supposed Constitutional scholar after all).

"Not at all. The Congress has the right to expand constitutional definitions. For instance Congress expanded the term “slavery” to include the peonage labor system and the coolie labor system, thus causing them to be both outlawed under the 13th A."

Exactly, they had to ammend the constitution, they can't just enact a Naturalization law to change the meaning of Natural Born Citizen either. Natural Born Citizen is a circumstance of birth, not a "class" of citizenship. You are still displaying how much you don't know.

"You know, because the natural born citizenship clause was specifically designed to stop Marxism and/or the licking of boots."

Actually it is designed to prevent that to the highest probablility. The Natural Born Citizenship requirement is a security measure designed to give the highest probability of allegiance and attachment to country. I am guessing by your reaction that your parents were not citizens when you were born, and you feel "cheated" that you are not eligible to be POTUS. POTUS eligibility is not a "right". As a citizen anyone has as many rights as anyone else, but only Natural Born Citizens (a circumstance of birth) are eligible to be POTUS. Obama knows full well that he doesn't qualify.

> The Natural Born Citizenship requirement is a security measure designed to give the highest probability of allegiance and attachment to country

Thus engaging in the “no true scottsman” fallacy.

> I am guessing by your reaction that your parents were not citizens when you were born, and you feel "cheated" that you are not eligible to be POTUS.

Well, according to you they weren’t as follows.

You see my great grandparents were not citizens. They just came here.

So my grandparents are not citizens, right? And their only claim to citizenship was birth, so...

So then my parents are not citizens, either, right? And their only claim to citizenship was birth, so...

So we have now three generations of people born in the U.S. in specific states—not even the territories—and according to your logic, none of them are natural born citizens. Indeed, we are not even citizens at all. According to your idiot theory.

Well that's not really my market. We want to stick to what we do best. But I will them all the best. There are a couple of joints in the Village that have that all locked up. If you need any addresses I am sure Jeremy can hook you up.

When the phone rings It's just some friends of mine that say, "Hey, what's the matter man? We're gonna come around at twelve With some Puerto Rican girls that are just dyin' to meet you. We're gonna bring a case of wine Hey, let's go mess and fool around You know, like we used to"

So my grandparents are not citizens, right? And their only claim to citizenship was birth, so...

So then my parents are not citizens, either, right? And their only claim to citizenship was birth, so...

So we have now three generations of people born in the U.S. in specific states—not even the territories—and according to your logic, none of them are natural born citizens. Indeed, we are not even citizens at all. According to your idiot theory.

By the way, that called reduction ad absurdum, you idiot.

> POTUS eligibility is not a "right".

It absolutely is. It’s a birthright."

First, eligibility for POTUS per the Natural Born Citizenship requirement is an eligibility issue, not a "right". Google it, you will see that Althouse did a post about this very subject. It is a National security requirement.Second, your grandparents were naturalized in some way after they were born, (like your great granparents were naturalized, either by statute or act). Third, you really have no clue as tio what you speak, so the Latin doesn't really hide that.

"How will Kagan, a New Yorker, understand the people of the Midwest? Answer: She's lived in Chicago and something along the lines of being very good about understanding whatever she needs to understand."

Manhattanites are famous for being able to study and understand the needs of the lesser folks not just of Flyover country, but the less enlightened Boroughs of NYC itself. And then to decide what is best for them - from Wall Street derivatives, to culture, to the Talmudic "new law" being pushed on America of endless debate and appeals.

Sometimes they do profess befuddlement at the less sophisticated not understanding all the effort Manhattanites pour into teaching them properly. Pauline Kael was shocked in 1972 that all the arguments her sort of people made failed to sink in despite all the instruction to the masses" "How could they elect Nixon? Nobody I know voted for him!"

I have my doubt that Elena Kagan, who bottom line is an academic surrounded like Kael was by fellow-minded people - will ever understand everyday Americans and what they want.

As a travel writer admitted. You can read a hundred books on the Greeks. See travel documentaries. Read their history. Eat authentic Greek food. Learn Greek law and custom and study their manners and dress from afar. But all that, including my own articles - only exist to stimulate interest and hopefully to get people to go and experience Greece and it's citizens. Because only through direct experience will you get essential understanding and meaningful satisfaction. The rest is just data.

Clearly, it is impossible to have the time apply the experiential to all knowledge needed of how say Michigan or Wisconsin residents tick. And enough time living in 48 other States to fully understand all their issues as well. I get Kagan saying she will work to educate herself of the gap in making decisions. But like Kael, it won't be possible if you have been isolated from normal Americans most your life.

That was a concern with Roberts, too. How much of his life was out-of-touch Elite? Roberts answered that by saying he was brought up regular middle-class Midwesterner before his Elitist years...and what he didn't know about other American's issues and culture he would address as an umpire. No empathy needed to call balls and strikes.

Obama TALKED about how important empathy was - but as time has gone on, we see how his own limited experience has crippled his own empathy for matters of deepest concern to most of the country.

Kagan, if she is supposed to be "empathetic" and use that as basis of judging is similarly crippled by existing in an Elitist bubble out of contact with others - and judging as someone who never encountered the Hoi Pollei as a lower level judge, never was a Mom, never was in the military, and considers "living in Chicago" as living on the U of Chicago campus.

So what will be the impact of the claim that Kagan, in the Clinton WH, rewrote language summarizing the conclusions of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) that partial birth abortions under certain circumstances (paraphrased) "wouldn't be the only" to "may be the best" option?

> First, eligibility for POTUS per the Natural Born Citizenship requirement is an eligibility issue, not a "right".

I can read the constitution. It is a right.

> Second, your grandparents were naturalized in some way after they were born, (like your great granparents were naturalized, either by statute or act).

But according to you the statute is meaningless, because they didn’t renounce the citizenship in their parents’ countries. You idiot."

I'm sorry to see that your lack of knowledge is causing you so much anger. There were many amnesties and Naturalization Acts back in the day that Naturalized alot of immigrants w/o oaths. The Naturalization oath though does pledge a renunciation of all foreign allegiances. If that is required of a Naturalized citizens, how could it not be required of a Natural Born Citizen, i.e BORN w/ no foreign allegiances, because that child is born in the US of US Citizen parents?"...and subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is the action phrase of the amendment, it is required of those born or naturalized. That is the reason that Indians not taxed and children of diplomats are not citizens; they are born subject to the jurisdiction of another nation through blood, just like Obama was ADMITTEDLY born subject to the jurisdiction of Britain through blood. He can never be a natural born citizen do to the circumstances of his birth.This can't be that hard to understand.

So what will be the impact of the claim that Kagan, in the Clinton WH, rewrote language summarizing the conclusions of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) that partial birth abortions under certain circumstances (paraphrased) "wouldn't be the only" to "may be the best" option?

It's mildly embarrassing. It's not as bad as the Secretary of the Interior lying in district court. And look what happened to him. Nothin'.